Sunday, June 29, 2014

I appreciate Helene Uchida's mentioning my work ("Teaching 'kid-friendly' grammar", June 29) but her description is not quite accurate: Language acquisition, we have concluded, does not require "meaningful interaction." It requires comprehension of messages, called "comprehensible input."
This means that we acquire languages when we understand what we hear and read, not when we speak or write. The ability to speak and write is the result of language acquisition, not the cause.
This is an important point: It means that the value of interaction is what the other person says to you, not what you say to them. It also means that we should not force students to speak before they are ready.
From her description, much of what Ms. Uchida does provides comprehensible input, especially hearing stories. I hope she will reconsider other aspect of her method.
Research supporting this approach is now available for free, at www.sdkrashen.com. For studies done in Japan with EFL students, please see benikomason.net.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

original article: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001354828

PRIMARY ADVICE / Teaching ‘kid-friendly’ grammar
June 29, 2014; The Japan News
By Helene Uchida / Special to The Japan News Q: I understand that grammar can be dull for children, but I believe it is still essential in language learning. Am I wrong? Could you give me some advice on how to incorporate grammar into a child’s lesson and still keep it “kid-friendly”?
D.B., teacher
Vancouver, Canada A: I notice that you are teaching in Canada, so your situation is most likely different from ours in Japan. Middle and high school English teachers here tend to focus on grammar and translation methods; primary school English programs are still in the infancy stage.
Granted, grammar is the structure all languages hinge on.
The question is, “Should we teach grammar to prescribe language or describe it?” Clearly, the current Japanese system of prescribing English grammar rules does not contribute to communication.
Stephen Krashen, a pioneer in second language acquisition, states: “Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language—natural communication—in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.”
I think the key point here is “messages.” Youngsters worldwide could not care less about grammar; most do not even know what grammar is. Because their attention span is short, young learners enjoy discovering and using words or phrases that easily work for them in sending and receiving messages. This can be coordinated in the classroom by the teacher orchestrating “message” activities, such as naming flash cards, recognizing words or images on posters, imagining the meaning of content as picture books are being read to them, understanding the teacher’s requests, commands and praises, and making statements or asking questions for clarification with peers.
Primary school students can easily understand the following sentences with visuals: Taro is a boy. Sumi is a girl. Bo is a dog.
They can understand and in some instances construct similar sentences without knowing what a subject, verb, complement or article is. Later on, after sentence structures like these become natural to them, the teacher can tell them subjects are what the sentence is about. The teacher can hand them a print with simple sentences, such as the ones above, and ask them to circle the subjects. After completing that exercise, the teacher can ask them where the subject usually occurs. They will notice it is usually at the beginning of a sentence.
Such exercises help students describe the language that they have been using to communicate with others. I think this is better than prescribing rules, which makes them hesitate because fear of making a mistake takes priority over communication. Understanding and appreciating grammar at this point in the learning process is akin to “fine tuning.” Language structure has already been established via experiences.
* * * * *
Readers are encouraged to send questions on any theme related to teaching English to younger learners, particularly those at the primary school level, to Helene J. Uchida by e-mail at jn-edu@yomiuri.com or fax at (03) 3217-9820. Questions should preferably be written in English, accompanied by your name, occupation and the area in which you live.
Uchida is the director of Little America, a Fukuoka-based company for training teachers of English.

Saturday, June 28, 2014

Sent to the South Chine Morning Post, June 28, 2014.
I have participated in the Great Native Speaker Teacher debate in the South China Morning Post (letters by Vaughen Rapatahana, June 11, Michael Shaw, June 17, my letter, June 23, Regina Ip, June 27).
Missing from all of these letters, including mine, is any mention of the biggest factor in helping students develop to high levels of English proficiency: self-selected pleasure reading. Those who read more develop higher levels of reading ability, writing ability, grammar, vocabulary and spelling, and studies consistently show that the amount of pleasure reading done in English is the best predictor of advanced English proficiency (eg. TEOFL).
What every English teacher should do, whether native or not, is help students develop a pleasure reading habit in English. This can be done by allowing students some time for reading in school, beginning with easy readers and moving on to comprehensible authentic reading, and by introducing students to genuinely interesting reading material.
What Hong Kong needs to do is make sure that interesting reading material is easily available in school and public libraries. This will not only make English classes more effective but will also ensure that growth in English will continue after students finish school.

Friday, June 27, 2014

Strengthening school libraries is an easy and inexpensive way to improve school performance ("CPS board warned of drought of librarians," June 26.)
There is enormous evidence that self-selected pleasure reading is the source of much of our literacy development: Those who read more read better, write better, spell better, have larger vocabularies, and better grammar.
Most students in CPS live in poverty. Students who live in poverty are "behind" in reading because they have few books in their homes, live in neighborhoods with few bookstores and few good public libraries. Their only sure source of books is the school library.
The importance of the school has been confirmed in study after study: Better school libraries with credentialed libraries mean higher reading scores. In our recent study, based on data from 40 countries, we found that access to a good school library was positively related to reading scores, and nearly offset the negative effect of poverty. In other words, school libraries and school librarians can help close the achievement gap.
Stephen Krashen

original article: http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/cps-board-warned-drought-librarians/wed-06252014-433pm
Source:
Krashen, S., Lee, S.Y. and McQuillan, J. 2012. Is the library important? Multivariate studies at the national and international level. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1): 26-36.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Summer Reading for Parents (June 25) shows how the common core is pushing publishers and parents in the wrong direction. None of these fads, all featured in the WSJ article, is supported by research, experience, or common sense: reward stickers, restricting children to reading at “their level," and a de-emphasis of fiction. Rewarding reading can send the message that reading is so unpleasant that bribes are necessary. The rewards also focus children more on what they need to remember to do to get prizes than the pleasure of reading. Restricting children to reading at a certain level makes the incorrect assumption that readers must know nearly every word to understand and enjoy texts. John Holt tells this story:"… One day, in one of our many free periods, (one of my students) was reading at her desk. From a glimpse of the illustrations I thought I knew what the book was. I said to myself, "It can't be," and went to take a closer look. Sure enough, she was reading Moby Dick. When I came close to her desk she looked up. I said, " Are you really reading that?" She said she was! I said, "Do you like it?" She said, "Oh, yes, it's neat!" I said, "Don't you find parts of it rather heavy going?" She answered, "Oh, sure, but I just skip over those parts and go on to the next good part."Holt continues: "This is exactly what reading should be and in school so seldom is- an exciting, joyous adventure. Find something, dive into it, take the good parts, skip the bad parts, get what you can out of it, go on to something else. How different is our mean-spirited, picky insistence that every child get every last little scrap of understanding that can be dug out of a book."Nonfiction and other kinds of "light reading" form the bridge between "conversational" and "academic" language: nearly all those who have mastered academic language have read a great deal of lighter material that they found to be highly interesting, and that did not involve any struggle, only intensive interest. All this fiction and light reading did not result in full academic competence, but provided them with the linguistic competence and knowledge that helped make more demanding texts comprehensible.
Children's book publishers should continue their excellent job of providing wonderful children's literature, concentrating on great stories and fascinating nonfiction texts that excite children and motivate them to read more.

Stephen Krashen

SOME SOURCES:

Rewards: Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (second edition)Krashen, S. (2003). The (lack of) experimental evidence supporting the use of accelerated reader. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29 (2): 9,16-30.Leveled books: Holt, J. 1967. How teachers make children hate reading,http://www.hawaii.edu/eli/online/eli82/john_holt.htmValue of fiction:Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann Publishing Company and Libraries Unlimited.The common core:Krashen, S. 2013. Access to books and time to read versus the common core standards and tests. English Journal 103(2): 21-39.

An article in the Guardian announced that a
new study confirmed the positive effect of intensive systematic phonics. In my
letter to the Guardian(see below) I said
that the study only confirmed what we already know: "Intensive phonics
instruction helps children do better on tests in which they are asked to
pronounce words out loud, and on tests of spelling. Not mentioned is the
consistent finding that intensive phonics instruction makes no significant
contribution to performance on tests in which children have to understand what
they read."

I like to refer to this as the Garan Effect:
The National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) concluded that the experimental
research supports intensive systematic phonics.Garan (2002), in an examination of this report, noted that the impact of
intensive phonics is strong on tests in which children read lists of words in
isolation, but it is miniscule on tests in which children have to understand
what they read. Thus, intensive phonics instruction only helps children develop
the ability to pronounce words in isolation, an ability that will emerge anyway
with more reading. Garan's results agree with the results of many other studies
that show that intensive phonics instruction has a positive impact on tests of
decoding but not on tests of comprehension (Krashen, 2009).

Two responses of my claims have been posted on
twitter. Both deserve a more detailed response than twitter allows.

In one tweet, it was maintained that the
unpublished report that was the basis for the Guardian article (Grant, 2014) did in fact contain data on tests in
which children had to understand what they read and that intensive phonics-trained
students did better: Students who had studied of intensive systamatic phonics
appeared to do well on the English SAT Stage 2 test at age 11, with 94% scoring
at the 4+ level, (where 4 = "expected" and 6 = is the highest level),
compared with 79% for the entire country (England), and 82% for "similar
schools."

Before we rush to reject the Garan Effect,
however, it needs to be pointed out that (1) Grant (2014) asserts that the
differences are statistically significant, but provides us only with
percentages, no means, no standard deviations, no sample size, and no details
about the tests of statistical significance.

(2) The data is based on the 2004 English SAT.
That test included sections on writing and spelling in addition to reading
comprehension, and I have been unable to find scores for the individual
components.

(3) True experiments demand a comparison group
that differs from the experimental group in only one way.Did the intensive phonics graduates'
educational experience differ in other important ways from comparisons? For
example, a number of studies show that performance on reading and writing
components is related to the amount of reading students do, especially free
voluntary reading (Krashen, 2004).Did
the intensive phonics students have more access to books and more encouragement
and time to read (e.g. sustained silent reading)?

The "Grant challenge" deserves
examination, but it is not nearly enough to reject the impressive body of
evidence supporting the Garan Effect.

A second challenge, also delivered by twitter,
is data from Connelly, Johnston, and Thompson (2001), who showed that intensive phonics-trained six year
olds did better on the Comprehension portion of the Neale Analysis of Reading
Test than children with much less phonics instruction. On the Neale, however, students
read passages aloud, and are then asked comprehension questions.While reading, their errors are tallied, and
only those who make less than a certain number of errors are asked
comprehension questions. This is not a situation that encourages a focus on
meaning.

Connelly, V.,Johnston,R., and Thompson, B. 2001. The effects of phonics instruction on the
reading comprehension of beginning readers. Reading and Writing 14: 423-457.

Thanks to Debbie Hepplewhite and Maggie Downie for their
comments.

My letter to the Guardian,
published June 23, 2014

The limits of phonics

The Guardian's enthusiastic report about the
efficacy of phonics is an example of "cold fusion" journalistic
practice: Presenting research reports to the public before the scientific
community has reviewed them. I provide one brief "peer review" here.
Neither the
study (thanks to the Guardian for providing a link to the preliminary
report) nor the Guardian's article point out that the study only confirms what
we already know: intensive phonics instruction helps children do better on
tests in which they are asked to pronounce words out loud, and on tests of
spelling.Not mentioned is the consistent finding that
intensive phonics instruction makes no significant contribution to performance
on tests in which children have to understand what they read. Real reading
ability is the result of actual reading, especially of books that readers find
interesting. Good readers eventually acquire nearly all the rules of phonics
and spelling, as a result of reading.Stephen KrashenProfessor emeritus, University of Southern Californiahttp://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/23/gove-love-move-limits-of-phonics

Friday, June 20, 2014

There is concern about a US Senate bill (S. 2450) that would expand medical coverage for veterans. The cost will be high, about $50 billion per year.

I propose we pay for this important bill by dumping the common core state education standards. The standards will probably cost taxpayers close to $50 billion a year – all common core tests will be given online, which means each student must have an updated computer (figure 50 million students with a new computer every three years), and new software and infrastructure. The common core is bringing in more testing than ever seen in the history of our planet. This requires additional funding to create, score, and regularly revise tests.

Paying for veteran benefits makes good sense. In contrast there is no evidence that the common core will help children and plenty of evidence that it will not. Studies show that increasing testing does not improve school performance. The new standards may be "tougher" but this does not mean they are better. The common core, as Susan Ohanian has characterized it, is simply a “radical untried curriculum overhaul” combined with “nonstop national testing."

According to "Field test of Common Core exams went well, officials say," (June 19), the "field-testing" was largely about how students react to online testing and what testing experts call "item-analysis," which means eliminating tricky items. These are low-level aspect of field-testing.

There is no indication that the big questions will be asked now or ever: Is all this testing, the largest investment in testing ever made, worth it? Will it improve student achievement?

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/field-test-of-common-core-exams-went-well-officials-say/2014/06/19/01aaa29e-f7e0-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Sent to the Taiwan News, June 18.
America's new common core is a bad solution to a problem that does not exist ("Common core, in 9 year old eyes," June 18).
The common core is intended to fix America's "broken schools," but the
major problem in education in the US is poverty: The US now ranks 34th
in the world out of 35 economically developed countries in child
poverty: when researchers control for the effect of poverty, US
international test scores are at the top of the world. The obvious
path is to protect children from the impact of poverty: improve
nutrition through school food programs, improve health care through
investing more in school nurses, and improving access to books through
investing in school libraries. Studies show, unsurprisingly, that
children who are hungry, ill and have little or nothing to read, do not
do well in school. Instead, the US government is investing billions in a
tougher, more "rigorous" curriculum and instituting an astonishing
amount of testing, more than we have ever seen on this planet. There is
no evidence that any of this will help children. Susan Ohanian has
provided an accurate description of the common core: “a radical untried
curriculum overhaul” combined with “nonstop national testing."
Stephen Krashen
Note: The article that was in the Taiwan News was reprinted from the New York Times.

Sent to the Guardian, June 17.Some may approve of Sir Michael Wilshaw's plan to fine parents who don't read to their children ("Schools should fine 'bad parents'," says Ofsted chief,” June 17), in light of the overwhelming research showing that read-alouds are beneficial: Children who are read to regularly consistently do better on tests of vocabulary, grammar, and listening comprehension, and read-alouds do an excellent job of stimulating interest in books. But there is an easier path: Make books available, and inform parents of the value and pleasure of reading aloud. In the US, the Reach Out and Read organization has had remarkable success using a modest and inexpensive intervention: While in waiting rooms for well-child pediatrician's appointments, hospital staff members show parents reading activities they can do with their children, with a focus on reading aloud to the child, and staff members discuss the importance of reading, which the physician does as well. The families receive free books at each doctor visit. Reach Out and Read is aimed at lower-income groups who have little access to books and thus typically score considerably lower than average on vocabulary tests. Studies show that children participating in these programs make excellent gains in vocabulary. In one study over a three-year span subjects had an average of only three well-child appointments in which their doctors discussed books and they received an average of four books over three years. Nevertheless, the children did far better than comparison children on vocabulary tests, scoring closer to middle-class norms. The families cooperate with this program eagerly. There is no need to use force. Stephen Krashenoriginal article: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/17/schools-fine-parents-ofsted-michael-wilshawsources: Reach Out and Read: http://www.reachoutandread.org/Krashen, S. 2011. Reach out and read (aloud). Language Magazine 10 (12): 17-19.Mendelsohn A., Mogiler L., Dreyer B., Forman J., Weinstein S., Broderick M., Cheng K., Magloire T., Moore T. and Napier C. 2001. The impact of a clinic-based literacy intervention on language development in inner-city preschool children. Pediatrics 107(1): 130–134.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Published in the South China Morning Post, June 23 as "Summer reading helps literacy"

Re: "Encourage your child to read over the summer break," June 17.

I refer to the article, "Between the lines: encourage your child to read over the summer break" (June 17).
For many students, the problem is not the "learning loss" that takes place during the summer; it is the loss in literacy development that takes place during the school year. Research consistently shows that we improve in literacy by doing large amounts of interesting reading for pleasure. This is often not possible during the school year, because of the pressure of school work and exams.
In one of our studies, we examined the case of a high-school student whose reading scores declined during the school year, but rose substantially during each summer break. It was her summer reading that was responsible for her improvement during her high-school years.
Her mother (co-author of our study) joked that it might be a good idea to keep her daughter at home during the school year in order to increase her improvement on tests of reading.
Stephen Krashen

Sunday, June 15, 2014

The Guardian's enthusiastic report about the efficacy of phonics is an example of "Cold Fusion" journalistic practice: Presenting research reports to the public before the scientific community has reviewed them. I provide one brief "peer review" here.

Neither the study (thanks to the Guardian for providing a link to the preliminary report) nor the Guardian's article pointed out that the study only confirmed what we already know: Intensive phonics instruction helps children do better on tests in which they are asked to pronounce words outloud, and on tests of spelling.

Not mentioned is the consistent finding that intensive phonics instruction makes no significant contribution to performance on tests in which children have to understand what they read: Real reading ability is the result of actual reading, especially of books that readers find very interesting. Good readers eventually acquire nearly all the rules of phonics and spelling, as a result of reading.

Real reading ability comes from reading.Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann Publishing Company and Libraries Unlimited. Sullivan, A. and Brown, M. 2013. Social inequalities in cognitive scores at age 16: The role of reading. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London www.cls.ioe.ac.uk

Friday, June 13, 2014

The composition section is the most contentious part of the Comprehensive Examination ("Blame game won’t solve exam problem: minister," June 13).

I have a suggestion: Drop the composition section entirely.

Testing students on writing proficiency makes no sense: Studies show that our ability to write using the accepted conventions of writing, including organization and mechanics, is largely the result of reading, which is why reading and writing scores are always so highly correlated: those who read a great deal do better on both reading and writing tests.

Essays are also the hardest part of language exams to grade, requiring consultation among graders and a great deal of tedious work.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/06/13/2003592660/1

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Submitted to the Southtown Star (Chicago)
Graphic novels and real literature: A comment on classic literature in comic form

Using graphic novels to present classic literature ("Vickroy: Classic literature in comic form has broader reach, teachers say," June 11) is similar to the classic comics movement, popular during the "golden age" comics in the 1940's and 1950's. Classic comics were more acceptable to parents and teachers, but studies done at this time revealed that students were not nearly as enthusiastic. In one study, seventh graders rated ninth of 15 comic types in popularity, and when students are simply asked what comics they like, classic comics were never mentioned.
It should be pointed out, however, that the graphic novels and comics of today are often of very high quality and many qualify as real literature. For beginners, try The Watchmen, an examination of the problems when invincible super-heroes are given too much authority (from Cicero's quote, "Who is watching the Watchman?"), and The Dark Kniight Returns, which features interesting discussion between Batman and Superman concerning the occasional conflict between personal ethnics and the law.

Stephen Krashen

original paper: http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/28000375-418/vickroy-classic-literature-in-comic-form-has-broader-reach-teachers-say.html#.U5pR4ah9nYN

"We are likely to find that the problems of
housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will
themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished.” (Martin Luther King,
1967, Final Words of Advice).

Readers
of The Record might be interesting in knowing that Christoper de Vinck's
column, "Key to student success lies in the home" (June 11) is going
viral, as they say these days.It is a
clear statement of the insanity gripping education, and points clearly to the
most important issues: Poverty and parent-child relationships.

A great
of evidence supports Mr. de Vinck's argument: Study after study confirms that
middle-class American children in well-funded schools outperform nearly every
country in the world on international tests: As de Vinck states, the problem is
not teachers, unions, or lack of technology, it is poverty.Poverty means insufficent nutrition, lack of
health care, and lack of access to books, all of which are associated with poor
school performance.It is also likely
that poverty and the stress it places on parents contributes to what Mr. de
Vinck calls "chaos in the home."

The
billions we are cheerfully spending on "rigorous" standards and
massive testing needs to be spent on protecting children from poverty and
working toward full employment at a living wage.

Christopher de Vinck is the language
arts supervisor at Clifton High School in New Jersey. His 13th book is “Moments
of Grace” (Paulist Press).

LET’S CREATE a national program called
“No Child Left behind,” and flood the schools with standardized tests. Let’s
change the name and call it “Race to the Top.” Let’s put kids in uniforms.
Let’s increase the school day. Let’s pay teachers less money. Let’s pay
teachers more money. Let’s create charter schools. Let’s create schools just
for boys. Let’s create schools just for girls. Let’s have kids pray in school.
Let’s create common core standards. Let’s blame the college teacher-education
programs. Let’s blame the teachers. Let’s blame the parents. Let’s give the
governors and the business community the keys to the schools. Let’s flood the
schools with technology. Let’s call schools boring. Let’s blame the curriculum.

Don’t you see how foolish we have been?
Don’t you see that all of these initiatives are focused on the politics of
education and not education? Don’t you realize that none of these attempts has
made any difference in the education of children for the past 40 years?

Based on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (the nation’s report card), the average reading scores for
17-year-olds today is not significantly different from the scores in 1971.

For the past 43 years our nation has
been dodging the real reasons why our system of education has been stagnant.

Stable homes

I have worked in public education for my
entire career, 38 years of tending to high school students as a teacher and as
an administrator day after day, month after month, year after year. I can say
with certitude why many students are doing poorly in school: Kids from
financially stable homes are more successful students than kids from
financially chaotic homes. Kids who come from homes with socially stable adults
stay in school and succeed, and kids who live with socially chaotic adults
don’t succeed in school and drop out at a significantly high rate.

Poor education in this country has
nothing to do with the quality of the teachers, curriculum, computers,
buildings, race, uniforms and ideology. The problems in our system of education
stem from children who are not nourished intellectually, emotionally,
physically and spiritually at home each day.

The problem in our education system is
that we are working with the ideal as to what schools should be with our
blatant, national refusal to tend to the realities of what many children’s
homes are truly like.

Children who live in chaos at home are
the very same children who look nice in uniforms, look angelic with their hands
folded in prayer and who ache inside to be loved.

Reading and
love

The children who are read to each night
are the children who succeed in school. The children who are kissed each night
with the words “I love you” whispered into their hearts are the children who
are confident. The children who wake up to eggs and juice in the morning are
the successful children with physical energy. Children who limit their exposure
to social media are the children who are dazzled with the school’s teachers and
curriculum. The children who sit at the dinner table and talk about their day
are the children who love school.

Vision of
their future

Helen Keller wrote that “knowledge is
love and light and vision.” Children gain that love at home. The school turns
the lights on in the classroom, and the teachers guide the children to the
vision of their future.

Without love at home, there is no
education.

As Plato wrote more than 2,000 years
ago, “Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the
mind.”

Education reform is not hiding in the
tests. Education reform is hiding in the home.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

" Over the last 16 years, academic research has largely found that good bilingual programs are just as effective at teaching English skills, and often slightly better at it, than classes that immerse students in English." This is better coverage than we usually get. But the research 16 years ago was quite positive about bilingual education. And too bad the LA Times is not aware of the McField and McField study. We need to do a better job of spreading the word. Amazing that they published the ignorant Chris Daley "flat earth" letter.

EDITORIAL LOS ANGELES TIMES: IS BILINGUAL EDUCATION WORTH BRINGING BACK?http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-bilingual-education-proposition-227-repeal-20140605-story.htmlA lot has changed since 1998, when Proposition 227 all but wiped out bilingual instruction in California public schools. The matter is due for reconsideration; a bill that passed the state Senate last week would allow that to happen. SB 1174, by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), would place a measure on the November 2016 ballot to repeal Proposition 227 and allow local school districts to decide whether they want to bring back bilingual education rather than continue with the current system, which aims to move students toward full-time English use as quickly as possible.Over the last 16 years, academic research has largely found that good bilingual programs are just as effective at teaching English skills, and often slightly better at it, than classes that immerse students in English. Along the way, they also teach students literacy in their native language.Another reason to consider bilingual education: Shortly after Proposition 227 passed, testing and accountability requirements were imposed on schools. The academic skills of students, including those who aren't fluent in English, are now measured every year. That means that if bilingual education is failing students, that failure will become clear quickly, and schools will face potential disciplinary measures if they don't fix the problem.A third factor: The globalization of the economy means that bilingualism confers a significant advantage in the work world.Yet there were good reasons Proposition 227 passed. Bilingual education is more expensive. The state suffered continual shortages of qualified bilingual teachers. Worse, bilingual education was often poorly done. It's important to consider the academic studies that have shown slightly better results for bilingual classes, but remember that those studies involved top-notch programs with outstanding teachers. California's public schools seldom came close to the model, and before Proposition 227, thousands of students were handed diplomas without ever having mastered English.To persuade voters, supporters of bilingual education will have to demonstrate that they can overcome these obstacles.Dual immersion programs, a subset of bilingual education in which students from different language backgrounds study in two languages, gaining fluency in both, have often succeeded and are increasingly popular. Such programs exist in California, but they have been small and have involved populations of motivated parents and students. Bringing them up to scale so that they work statewide might be difficult.These are debates worth having, and SB 1174 would provide the forum for them.Readers React: Bringing back bilingual education – LETTERS published in the LA Times, June 8It's about time we reconsider the research that tells us that a transitional bilingual program leads to fluency in two languages. ("Is bilingual education worth bringing back?," Editorial, June 5)Let's not fall into the trap of testing a subject in English that has been taught in the primary language. Let's not expect a child to be truly bilingual before five or six years of instruction. It's a gradual process. Let's find "top-notch programs with outstanding teachers."Everyone needs a chance to succeed academically. It's possible. It will be good for all students, and for the future of Los Angeles.Frances GoldsteinSherman OaksThe writer is a retired L.A. Unified School District bilingual education teacher.SB 1174 by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) to allow for the return of bilingual education is a horrible idea.In 1998, Proposition 227 passed easily, not because a bunch of xenophobes were behind it but because leaders in non-English-speaking communities supported it. They understood that to be successful, you had to know English.Teaching a second language to all students is a great idea. This should start in the early grades, but non-English speakers should not be given credit for studying English or the language they already know.All other instruction must be in English if our children are to have the skills they will need to succeed in a more competitive world.Chris DalyYucaipa

Saturday, June 7, 2014

"
(Bill) Gates has said that one of the benefits of common standards would be to
open the classroom to digital learning, making it easier for software
developers — including Microsoft — to develop new products for the country’s
15,000 school districts.

In
February, Microsoft announced that it was joining Pearson, the world’s largest
educational publisher, to load Pearson’s Common Core classroom materials on
Microsoft’s tablet, the Surface. That product allows Microsoft to compete for
school district spending with Apple, whose iPad is the dominant tablet in
classrooms.

Gates dismissed any suggestion that he is motivated by self-interest."

Inigo Montoya: Youkeep
using that word.
I do not think it means what you
think it means.
...(from: The Princess Bride).

We are told that ELLs are about to
"test drive" the "New English-Language Proficiency Assessments."
(June 5).

What does "test-drive" mean? I suspect it means that basic
diagnostics such as internal reliability and item-analysis will be done. I
suspect that it does not include the most important diagnostic: Validity,
especially predictive validity.Will
there be any attempt to see if all this testing will do students any good?

Friday, June 6, 2014

Arne Duncan has suggested that year-round
school is the solution to the summer slide.Thanks to the common core, year-round school will make things worse.

Research tells us that those living in poverty
have the least access to books. Students living in poverty also show the most
summer loss, and those who read more over the summer make better gains in
reading achievement. Providing more
access to interesting reading material by investing in public libraries and
librarians is an excellent way to deal with summer learning loss.

School during the summer means more common core,
and less chance of pleasure reading happening. The common core discourages
pleasure reading, because of its harsh set of standards, nonstop testing, and
restriction to reading at or above "grade level," which for half of
our students means a limitation to difficult reading (by definition, half of
the students read below grade level, because grade level means the 50th
percentile). In addition, there is less funding than ever for school libraries,
thanks the huge amount of money being spent on online testing.

More money to support the biggest boondoggle in the history of education?

There is zero research supporting the value of on-line testing, and no
plans to do even small scale studies. The amount of money on-line
testing will cost will be staggering and will increase dramatically.
Every student has to have access to an modern computer with up-to-date
capacity, and just to keep up with changes, the computers will have to
be replaced every three years and the entire infra-stucture might have
to be altered or replaced. Moreover, we are increasing the amount of
required testing far beyond NCLB levels, a move that also has no support
in the research.

All this at a time when budgets are strained,
and there is little or no money for essentials, for things that have
been consistently shown to help students.

Monday, June 2, 2014

A recent Learning the Language blog post on California bilingual education is right:
Things have changed dramatically since the dismantling of bilingual education
in California caused by the passage of Proposition 227.

The most important change is that there is more evidence than ever that
bilingual education works, and that bilingual education does a better job of
helping children acquire English than all-English "immersion"
programs do. In their paper "The Consistent Outcome of Bilingual Education
Programs: A Meta-analysis of Meta-analyses," Grace McField and David
McField considered comparisons of bilingual education and English immersion
that had been included in previous meta-analyses. (Their study is published in The
Miseducation of English Learners, edited by Grace McField and released by
Information Age Publishing earlier this year.)

The authors concluded that, when both program quality and research
quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education was considerably
larger than that reported in previous analyses. This should settle the
argument: Bilingual programs, when set up correctly and evaluated correctly, do
not prevent the acquisition of English—they facilitate it.